Campaigns Soft-Pedal On Children and the Poor

By SOMINI SENGUPTA

Published: October 29, 2000

The question of government services for poor families and children has largely been absent from the United States Senate campaign trail in New York. And yet it is among the most vexing issues that the next senator will have to face.

In 2002, when the federal welfare program comes up for reauthorization, Congress must decide whether to preserve, raise or reduce current funding levels and assess the circumstances of those who have yet to move from welfare to work. Many Republicans are likely to call for a reduction in funding for Temporary Aid to Needy Families, citing in particular the large drop in the nation's welfare rolls and the substantial surpluses that the decreases have generated over the last three years.

So far, neither the Democratic nor the Republican candidate has said much on the subject. In his stump speeches, Representative Rick A. Lazio has been virtually silent on welfare, and Hillary Rodham Clinton has said little beyond praising her husband's success in ''ending welfare as we know it.''

But in recent interviews, remarks by the candidates or their spokesmen have yielded a somewhat surprising picture.

Mr. Lazio says he will seek to expand funding for the program, with an eye toward broadening child care subsidies for those getting off welfare.

''Congressman Lazio believes welfare reform is one of the most important pieces of legislation and one of the greatest successes of the Republican Congress,'' said a spokesman, Michael Marr. ''One area where the congressman thinks it could be made better and stronger is by giving greater flexibility on child care, more money and more flexibility.''

Mrs. Clinton stopped short of taking a position on funding levels. ''That's something we're going to have to take a look at,'' she said. ''We have to take a hard look at the population.''

She said she would, however, require states to provide a more detailed accounting of how they spend their welfare block grants and press for laws to create financial incentives for states that can show success in putting welfare recipients to work. ''I'm going to be a strong voice for evaluating what works,'' she said.

As on many issues, it is difficult to properly compare the candidates' positions on government assistance programs. While Mr. Lazio has been ranked by numerous citizens' groups and advocacy organizations that measure the voting records of elected officials, there is no such measuring stick for Mrs. Clinton. But it is she who has made a name for herself as an advocate for children, despite the absence of a voting record.

She has served on the board of the Children's Defense Fund, the nonprofit organization based in Washington that is famous for its advocacy for public assistance for poor families, children's health insurance and early-childhood programs. Mr. Lazio has a legislative record that includes supporting aid for many children's programs. But he is also criticized for approving most parts of the Republicans' Contract With America, which opposed several entitlement programs.

And while Mrs. Clinton has said she was a driving engine for measures like increased funding for youth leaving foster care and health care coverage for uninsured children, she also sided with her husband, and against many of her friends in the antipoverty world, on the 1996 overhaul of welfare.

At the time, Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund and a friend of the first lady's, harshly criticized the president's acquiescence on the Republican-led welfare changes; Ms. Edelman's husband, Peter Edelman, resigned in protest from his administration post.

For his part, Mr. Lazio has voted to expand Head Start funding, to restore a child care block grant that had been slashed, and to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation, which represents the indigent in court. Along with many Republicans, he sided with the Clinton administration in restoring some benefits to some legal immigrants. On issues considered important to the Children's Defense Fund, Mr. Lazio voted its preferred position 75 percent of the time in 1998 and 66 percent of the time in 1999. (He earned considerably lower points from the John Birch Society, taking its side 30 percent of the time in 1999.)

Neither candidate has taken a visible position on the most pressing antipoverty measures, like the revamping of welfare, said Deepak Bhargava, director of public policy at the Center for Community Change, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group based in Washington. Instead, he said, they have worked on more marginal items.

''Neither of them can be called a staunch defender of antipoverty programs,'' he said.

Mr. Lazio has sought to make his mark promoting housing measures intended for low-income people, Mr. Bhargava said, but he has also sided with the Republican majority on measures vehemently opposed by antipoverty groups. He supported a House Republican proposal to replace foster care entitlement financing with a block grant.

In 1996, he voted against an amendment allowing states to use block grant funds to provide non-cash assistance to children after their parents' welfare benefits had run out, and voted for an amendment limiting food stamps to able-bodied adults only if they worked. In 1998, he voted against a Democratic amendment to increase Section 8 housing assistance to families leaving welfare. He is not a co-sponsor of either of two bills, pending before Congress, to restore food stamps to all legal immigrants.

While Mr. Lazio's priorities can be viewed through his voting record, Mrs. Clinton's are virtually impossible to assess in the boxing ring of the Senate race.